Rules Based Order and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15167492
In some of the Ukraine topics it was discussed how the "big boys" sort of throw their weight around and smaller country's rights and territorial integrity end up not being respected and constantly violated because they are smaller and weaker. Given this is the case, I could see where smaller countries are encouraged to acquire nuclear weapons as a guarantee that their territorial integrity and rights as a country will be respected by the "big boys." This sounds like a problem where there is a lack of a rules based order in the world where "might makes right" and there is a "law of the jungle." This sort of lack of a rules based order can have disastrous consequences in nuclear weapons proliferation and make the use of those weapons more possible. Thoughts anybody?
#15167494
Politics_Observer wrote:In some of the Ukraine topics it was discussed how the "big boys" sort of throw their weight around and smaller country's rights and territorial integrity end up not being respected and constantly violated because they are smaller and weaker. Given this is the case, I could see where smaller countries are encouraged to acquire nuclear weapons as a guarantee that their territorial integrity and rights as a country will be respected by the "big boys." This sounds like a problem where there is a lack of a rules based order in the world where "might makes right" and there is a "law of the jungle." This sort of lack of a rules based order can have disastrous consequences in nuclear weapons proliferation and make the use of those weapons more possible. Thoughts anybody?


A deterrence weapon only has value if you are willing and able to use it. Would Ukraine be willing to use a nuclear weapon on russia? would they be willing to send a missile to moscow?
Lets say they have it and are willing. Would they be able to land the missile? As in it is a "small nation" right? how many missiles do you expect them to have? half a dozen? a dozen? The "big boys" supposedly (and again a lot of this falls within state secret and such" have or will have technology to intercept midair and neutralize.
Do you think the world would see ukraine more favorable if they become the first nation since WWII to use a nuclear bomb against a target? even if they fail? or Worse, say it lands... now what?
Perhaps in the setting of mutually assured destruction it might make some sense, there are still some flaws with that theory.
But imagine this... not too long a "mid power" iran shitted their pants and shot down their own plane... you don't think that could happen in another shitty country such as Ukraine?
What about the reports that both the US and USSR during cold war had stupid passwords such as 123456 to launch missiles because reportedly they were affraid that in the event of a nuclear war they would forget the password? Do you trust small nations full of crime, mafia, etc having tthose sort of weapons? I mean I don't particularly trust the US or Russia or china but compared to more volatile countries such as Iran, Ukraine, NK, etc...
#15167498
@XogGyux

XogGyux wrote:A deterrence weapon only has value if you are willing and able to use it. Would Ukraine be willing to use a nuclear weapon on russia? would they be willing to send a missile to moscow?


Well, you are absolutely right and I have no doubt that if small countries like Ukraine for example do acquire those weapons they would be willing to use those weapons under specific circumstances like a massive conventional invasion of their territory from a bigger power they stand no chance against without nuclear weapons. Without nuclear weapons, they get destroyed. With nuclear weapons, bigger powers have to think longer and harder before invading a small country that has those weapons. I am sure Ukrainians provided a good amount of the brainpower behind the Soviet nuclear arsenal when the Soviet Union existed so they probably still have the knowledge of how to build and design nuclear weapons that are effective and can land on target. Or at the very least, nuke the invading forces.

Even if Ukraine or other small countries are a mafia state, they still care about their security from stronger powers that might violate it in the absence of a rules based order that would better ensure their rights as a country are respected. And without a rules based order to ensure that the rights of smaller countries are respected, it encourages the acquisition of these nuclear weapons by smaller states to ensure their security given their is an absence of a rules based international order with any real teeth. And that brings a whole new host of problems.
#15167502
OP is totally correct. Nukes these days are defensive deterrent weapons, not offensive.

I think the Iraq War and Israel gaining nukes and similar set terrible precedents because the rules aren't followed. So a country like Iran then feels it needs nukes to protect its own sovereignty.

The problem with the international order is that it is an anarchic system: there's no "world government" with a police force that enforces the rules, so the UN was formed to help this problem, but it still lacks teeth that a government has.
#15167506
@Unthinking Majority

Yup and because there are no rules based international order, we essentially still have a "might makes right" and "law of the jungle" international order which encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons so smaller states can be assured of their security and rights. That could make for a dangerous situation globally too though because without that international rules based order, smaller countries have no choice but to seek out nuclear weapons to protect themselves from stronger countries who would most certainly not respect their rights because they know they are stronger. UNLESS, those smaller states have nuclear weapons. Then stronger states would have to think twice about disrespecting the rights of smaller states who are armed with those weapons.
#15167508
Politics_Observer wrote:@Unthinking Majority

Yup and because there are no rules based international order, we essentially still have a "might makes right" and "law of the jungle" international order which encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons so smaller states can be assured of their security and rights. That could make for a dangerous situation globally too though because without that international rules based order, smaller countries have no choice but to seek out nuclear weapons to protect themselves from stronger countries who would most certainly not respect their rights because they know they are stronger. UNLESS, those smaller states have nuclear weapons.

Alliances help too. Many European countries don't have nukes because they're protected by ones who do.

It may be a case however that nukes prevent some direct conflict. But the danger of human error and rogue regimes and nuclear terrorism etc still exists in the background. Luckily in our world direct conflict is far rarer than ever.

The Iraq War gives a country like Russia the mindset of "well my enemy doesn't follow the rules, why should I?", and creates bad norms. The UN provides not only rules to be enforced (in theory) but norms to follow.
#15167510
@Unthinking Majority

I agree. I have no idea why Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. It made no sense at all to me. But he did and other major powers or the other "big boys" will notice that and ask "if the U.S. doesn't follow the rules based order, then why should we?" Which is a very good point. And so Russia may feel free to invade weaker countries like the U.S. did when it invaded Iraq. And smaller countries will be compelled to get nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the stronger countries. This also increases the likelihood that the bigger countries could fight each other directly too which would be a massive disaster. This is because in the absence of a rules based order bigger, stronger countries will seek to control the smaller countries for their own interests which could go against the interests of other major powers which in turn brings them into confrontation with each other.
#15167898
Yeah, looking at the world situation today, we really need a rules based order for international relations that is not governed by the "law of the jungle" or "might is right" paradigm. We need a rules based order of some kind that respects the rights and integrity of both large powerful countries and smaller countries equally. Without that rules based order, it's quite easy to see how that increases the proliferation of nuclear weapons and could trigger nuclear war that will destroy mankind. In this Ted Talk he draws an analogy of the extinction of the dinosaurs with a nuclear war that would lead to the same result for mankind.

Child Slavery and Profit

These people are poor and desperate but other poo[…]

The only realistic way forward it to make it as ea[…]

2021 Israeli-Palestine Conflict

What would the IDF do? Use barrel bombs like Assa[…]